Who believes that this is true? I don't for one. He is one of the nicest people you could meet, not an edge to him and so down to earth. One thing I fail to understand though is why is the man's name always bandied about in sex cases but the "victim" isn't named and yet when it is proved that the offence never took place, the alleged perpetrator is ruined for life and the alleged victim is left with her reputation intact.

Exactly!!! His name will now be mud forever! The 'victim' who was supposedly only 6 when she was raped, has now come forward, she is annoymous, and he has now been ruined for life. I am not defending any kind of rape or paedophilia, but this should be stopped, all the naming and shaming of people before they have been found guilty is so wrong.

fred wrote:Exactly!!! His name will now be mud forever! The 'victim' who was supposedly only 6 when she was raped, has now come forward, she is annoymous, and he has now been ruined for life. I am not defending any kind of rape or paedophilia, but this should be stopped, all the naming and shaming of people before they have been found guilty is so wrong.

Exactly. If they can name one party then both parties should be named. why should one be ruined for life and the other not? How old is she supposed to be anyway? If she was 6 when this alleged attack happened then she has taken her time to come forward. Did she spend all the time thinking of the compensation payout?